Religious

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Light

Not true. Jesus showed the ultimate forgiveness and tolerance when he forgave those who crucified him on the cross. In essence you are telling me that being Gay is such a bad sin that Jesus can forgive those nailing him to the cross, and putting him to death in such an unspeakable horrific act. But just being Gay is a worse crime and Jesus would not apply that same unconditional love. Incredible.

When Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his executioners, he did it on the basis that they did not know what they were doing. That is quite different from an individual who knows that what he is doing is wrong in God's sight (whatever the sin in question might be), but deliberately persists in it, with no attempt to exhibit repentance or sorrow for it, or to reform his behavior (and even while taking pride in it), and then still expects God to condone his actions, and to accept him on his own terms, rather than God's.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

However, the condemned adulteress did not approach Jesus, he approached her and defended her to the angry mob.

Yes, but the adulteress (who had no free choice concerning the manner in which she came before Jesus) also did not exhibit an attitude of defiance, or "What business is it of yours?" Her sin was manifest (as Jesus indicated when he forgave her), but the main "teaching point" of the episode was that the hypocrisy of those who had brought the woman before Jesus was even more pronounced. (One purely speculative account that I have heard suggested that, when there was the somewhat strange mention in the story of Jesus stooping down and writing in the dust as the woman's accusers were demanding an answer from him, what he was actually writing were the specific sins of the men in the group of accusers, for which they had deserved the same penalty that they were demanding for the woman, except that they had not been caught.)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Yes, but the adulteress (who had no free choice concerning the manner in which she came before Jesus) also did not exhibit an attitude of defiance, or "What business is it of yours?" Her sin was manifest (as Jesus indicated when he forgave her), but the main "teaching point" of the episode was that the hypocrisy of those who had brought the woman before Jesus was even more pronounced. (One purely speculative account that I have heard suggested that, when there was the somewhat strange mention in the story of Jesus stooping down and writing in the dust as the woman's accusers were demanding an answer from him, what he was actually writing were the specific sins of the men in the group of accusers, for which they had deserved the same penalty that they were demanding for the woman, except that they had not been caught.)

I think it would be fair to say that ALL accounts that we have heard or read concerning religious matters qualify to be called "purely speculative".

And I am talking about ALL religions...

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sorry guys. There were clearly those on that thread who quoted select passages from the Koran,implying those passages support just how evil the entire religion was. It was a clear example of CRITICS of the KORAN using a literal interpretation to paint Islam as evil, and of course ironically the same piss poor type of understanding Islamic terrorists use as interpretation.

.

There was not attempt to show how evil the entire religion of Muslim is.
There may be hundreds of other passages that offer a guidance to living.
However, those selected passages are exactly the one's that Muslim terrorists use to justify their murderous violence.
Are we to be wilfully blind and pretend that those passages are not in the Quran and that terrorists don't use them as a raison d'etre for their behavior?
I for one am not willing to do that.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

There was not attempt to show how evil the entire religion of Muslim is.
There may be hundreds of other passages that offer a guidance to living.
However, those selected passages are exactly the one's that Muslim terrorists use to justify their murderous violence.
Are we to be wilfully blind and pretend that those passages are not in the Quran and that terrorists don't use them as a raison d'etre for their behavior?
I for one am not willing to do that.

I never said ignore those passages. On the contrary I pointed out taking those and I might add those in the bible, taken literally are the cause of the problem in religiouns

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I never said ignore those passages. On the contrary I pointed out taking those and I might add those in the bible, taken literally are the cause of the problem in religiouns

Then we have at least some agreement on that.

[hcap]

Did you read my above post about the complexities of Arab Terrorism? I am painting a larger picture than focusing on " list of 109 verses in the Quran which condone violence." I am sure all of Leviticus may have a substantial number not even including the rest of the OT and NT.

[Show Me the Wire]

I agree about the main teaching point. To this day people fail to comprehend the lesson.

Regardless the manner how the woman came to Jesus we can't say anything about her attitude toward God prior to meeting Jesus. Prior to meeting Jesus her attitude was most likely as you quoted below:

The same would not apply to someone who was sinning deliberately and repeatedly, while failing to recognize his need for God's mercy and forgiveness (i.e., not realizing that he was spiritually "sick" to begin with), and even demanding that God accept his behavior before he would have anything to do with God, or believing that God was (or should be) perfectly satisfied with the way he was living or acting.

All we know is after Jesus acted as her advocate no one was left to condemn her and neither did Jesus.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

There was not attempt to show how evil the entire religion of Muslim is.
There may be hundreds of other passages that offer a guidance to living.
However, those selected passages are exactly the one's that Muslim terrorists use to justify their murderous violence.
Are we to be wilfully blind and pretend that those passages are not in the Quran and that terrorists don't use them as a raison d'etre for their behavior?
I for one am not willing to do that.

Of course we are allowed to acknowledge that these violent passages exist. They exist because these passages were written by man...and have nothing to do with the will of God. Vile passages of this type exist in the bible as well...and only a lunatic would support the idea that they were "God-inspired". These religious passages have been used by madmen throughout history, to defend their indefensible acts. Hitler -- contrary to popular belief -- considered himself a "Christian"...and he saw Jesus as a "fighting" rather than a "suffering" God. In his speeches and his written works, he would point out with delight that Jesus drove out the "blood vipers and the adders" from the Temple...and that Jesus fought mightily against the "Jewish poison".

Defective man sees whatever he wants to see in these "Holy Books"...and attaches whatever meaning he wants to them. And innocent people often suffer as a result.

I argued with you in the other thread because you suggested that the "millions and millions" of peaceful Muslims also bear responsibility for the heinous actions of the relative few...simply because they don't speak out and march to show their discontent. That's unfair...IMO.

All of us have deep feelings of discontent about things that we experience in our very lives...but few of us actually "speak out and march"...unless you consider anonymous online forums to be "speaking out". We may disagree totally with some of the things that our governments or our religions carry out, but how many of us take to the streets and complain publicly about them -- even though we have a lot more "freedom" than some other societies have?

I just don't think that we should be sitting on our couches and be demanding from other people the sort of "courage" that we ourselves are incapable of.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did you read my above post about the complexities of Arab Terrorism? I am painting a larger picture than focusing on " list of 109 verses in the Quran which condone violence." I am sure all of Leviticus may have a substantial number not even including the rest of the OT and NT.

I think that I've read every post in this thread.
Undoubtedly there are complexities about Arab terrorism.
But a main thread through those complexities is the political side of Islam which attempts to control every area of an individual's life, from dawn to dusk and throughout the night. Theocratic movements in the middle east are strong. Iran, of course, being an outstanding example of their dominance.
Christianity was once that way as well, in medieval times.
The Holy Roman empire ruled with an iron fist conducting inquisitions and wars in the name of Christianity.
Fortunately that is no longer the case.
But in education systems where the Islam religion is a dominant core of the curriculum in all grades, as is the case in several middle east countries, development of independent thinking is stunted to a point.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

There was not attempt to show how evil the entire religion of Muslim is.
There may be hundreds of other passages that offer a guidance to living.
However, those selected passages are exactly the one's that Muslim terrorists use to justify their murderous violence.
Are we to be wilfully blind and pretend that those passages are not in the Quran and that terrorists don't use them as a raison d'etre for their behavior?
I for one am not willing to do that.

What it is about is Islam is just as much as a governmental, political structure as it is a religion. The Muslims do not criticize because they believe in the theocracy function and everyone should be governed by Islamic laws.

I see you posted as I was composing my post.

[Show Me the Wire]

The fundamental reason the Crusades were fought was the protection of Europe's governmental, political structure from outside forces originating on a different continent.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The fundamental reason the Crusades were fought was the protection of Europe's governmental, political structure from outside forces originating on a different continent.

I don't understand...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't understand...

Islam and its political structure originated in Africa. Arabs, from Africa, invaded Jerusalem, Palestinian, Turkey and tried to invade Western Europe.


Btw I did not receive your mailing, yet.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Islam and its political structure originated in Africa. Arabs, from Africa, invaded Jerusalem, Palestinian, Turkey and tried to invade Western Europe.

So, the Crusades were a form of "self-defense"?